Nike's Bad Month

It hasn't been the best month for Nike.  There, of course, was the backlash over the women's Olympic track & field uniforms (which was a ridiculously stupid controversy), but that was just the tip of the iceberg.  They've also been dealing with the negative response to their MLB uniforms since Spring Training.  Reaction got so bad, in fact, that the MLBPA stepped in and essentially threw Nike under the bus.

To their credit, Nike acknowledged there were problems and vowed to fix them by the beginning of the 2025 season at the latest.  Although, I'd imagine it'll happen before the end of this season.  Because Nike knows they screwed up and knew they needed to do something about it.

This is vastly different than the track & field situation.  With the Olympic uniforms, the "controversy" was much ado about nothing from "experts" who were offering their opinion on a subject they know absolutely nothing about.  In this case, it's the MLB players themselves who were unhappy with the uniforms...that they were actually wearing!  And those complaints kept adding up from multiple different players who had multiple different issues with them.

The most noticeable thing about Nike's new MLB jerseys for this season is the player names.  They're significantly smaller.  And the small names look very amateurish.  With longer names that arch around the number, it doesn't look as bad.  But on every other player who has a shorter name, it does.  Instead of authentic MLB jerseys, they look like the replicas fans can buy in the team store.  That's one of the things Nike will address.  They'll be returning to the larger letters.  Not only that, but the colors on some of the team logos are noticeably lighter than in previous years, further adding to the amateurish look.

Another aesthetically significant issue with the new uniforms was the shades of gray on the pants and jerseys not matching.  This was evidently due to a change in the material used for the jersey, which is lighter in both texture and color.  However, the material used for the pants didn't change, resulting in the mismatched colors.

As if that wasn't bad enough, the uniforms don't retain sweat very well.  Like at all.  As a result, they leave very noticeable sweat marks.  And you can only imagine how it looks once the players start to sweat.  The jersey appearing darker because it's drenched in sweat is one thing.  But the pants become almost see-thru!  They're also prone to ripping, which, obviously, is not good.

All of these things have been brought up numerous times by multiple players, many of whom feel the overall quality has deteriorated.  They brought their concerns to both MLB and Nike, but were largely ignored until now.  The MLBPA was eventually heard, though, and all of the players' issues will be addressed.  The player names will be bigger, the grays will match and the pants will "return to the higher quality zipper used in 2023."

In a memo to union members, the MLBPA put the blame squarely on Nike's shoulders.  They didn't mince words, either.  "This has been entirely a Nike issue," it said.  "At its core, what has happened here is that Nike was innovating something that didn't need to be innovated.  We cautioned Nike against various changes when they previewed them in 2022, particularly regarding pants.  MLB had been, and has been, aware of our concerns as well."

They were also quick to absolve Fanatics, MLB's uniform manufacturer.  Fanatics received a fair amount of criticism, as well, but was doing everything to Nike's exact specifications.  The MLBPA actually defended Fanatics, pointing out that the company "recognizes the vital importance of soliciting Player feedback, obtaining Player buy-in and not being afraid to have difficult conversations about jerseys or trading cards.  Our hope is that, moving forward, Nike will take a similar approach."  That's not very subtle.  In fact, the MLBPA is straight calling Nike out for not listening to them.

Nike signed a 10-year deal to become MLB's uniform supplier in 2019.  Until this season, the biggest changes Nike has implemented are the addition of the swoosh logo to the front of every player's jersey, the establishment of City Connect uniforms (you know my feelings on that topic) and the American and National League All*Star Game uniforms that players now wear instead of their team uniform (which is something most fans wish they would go back to).  This is their first major uniform revamp, although the new uniform, the Vapor Premier, actually made its debut at the 2023 All*Star Game in Seattle.

Rob Manfred was optimistic about the uniforms and the innovations when they were first unveiled at last year's All*Star Game.  He predicted that the players would love them, citing feedback he received at the 2023 All*Star Game.  That prediction was obviously wrong.  The players didn't like them in Spring Training, and their opinion never improved.  Nike was trying to fix something that wasn't broken and ended up making it worse as a result.

That's the most telling thing about this whole debacle to me.  Nike is known for its innovation.  They're always trying new things that they feel will improve performance.  The response is usually overwhelmingly positive.  That wasn't the case here, though.  They tried to do too much, undoubtedly in an attempt to leave their mark.  They left their mark alright!  All of their "improvements" fell flat and, worse, they got on the union's bad side because they were giving the players the impression that their concerns were being ignored.  And, I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason those very public issues are only being addressed now is because Nike's hand was forced.

None of this was necessary, either, which I think is also significant.  There was nothing wrong with MLB uniforms, yet Nike decided to tinker with them anyway.  And, even though the players had concerns, they pressed on anyway.  In hindsight, those were both massive unforced errors.  In every other sport, Nike is sure to involve athletes in the process and get their buy-in.  That didn't happen here, and it resulted in Nike getting egg on its face.

Of course, it's not just Nike with egg on its face.  Major League Baseball doesn't come out of this looking to great, either.  Eventually, the bad publicity about something so stupid became too much.  In the end, they ultimately listened to the players.  If they'd done that in the first place, though, this whole debacle could've been avoided.

Is It the Pitch Clock Or Something Else?

Over the past few seasons, the number of injuries to pitchers has really become alarming.  Last week, both the Guardians' Shane Bieber and the Braves' Spencer Strider joined the ever-growing list of top-line starters who'll need Tommy John surgery, ruling them out until the middle of the 2025 season at the earliest.  It's a problem that isn't going away and, frankly, is getting worse.  There are a multitude of explanations why, all of which are probably factors when considered together.

A lot of people want to blame the pitch clock.  When it was introduced last season, it was definitely an adjustment for pitchers, who suddenly had to work with a time limit.  It was initially 15 seconds with the bases empty and 20 seconds with runners on base.  This season, the 20 seconds was reduced to 18, which some think is too short.

There's no doubt that the pitch clock has had an impact.  Not only do pitchers have to work quicker, they don't really get an opportunity to take a break unless they take their one timeout per plate appearance.  And the pitches, of course, are all high intensity.  Some pitchers naturally work quickly, so the pitch clock makes no difference to them.  Some are more deliberate, however, so those two seconds were a huge difference.  Especially if they're having trouble throwing strikes and just want to slow it down, which is something they really can't do with the pitch clock.

However, I think blaming the pitch clock is too easy and too convenient.  The rash of pitching injuries isn't a recent problem.  It predates the pitch clock.  While some pitchers have certainly gotten hurt because they have to work quicker with the pitch clock, that isn't the case for all of them.  And, more importantly, it's not like they started getting arm injuries that require surgery two years ago when the pitch clock was instituted.  

I'm also not sure how much of it can be attributed to MLB's crackdown on Spider-Tac and other types of "sticky stuff" that help pitchers grip the ball better.  I get why MLB banned the use of sticky stuff and agree with the decision, but I have no doubt pitchers who used it thought it helped.  Whether it actually did or not doesn't matter.  It was as much mental as it was physical.  And, in their mind, it helped.

Pitchers who used sticky stuff had to adjust how they threw those pitches.  For some, that involves gripping the baseball tighter or differently.  Which puts additional stress on their arm.  Not to mention the mental factor now going the other way.  They thought it helped, but now they're not allowed to use it.  How could they not be thinking about that while trying to get Major League hitters out?

Then there's the analytics, which I think may actually be one of the biggest factors.  Analytics has crept into every facet of the game, for good and for bad.  With pitching, I'd argue that it's mostly bad.  Because there's so much data at everyone's disposal that it's overwhelming.  And it results in everything being overanalyzed.  Especially when it comes to pitching.

Analytics has led to an increased focus on two things in particular.  Spin rate and degree of break.  Instead of learning a pitch and letting it develop naturally, it's become a high-performance lab test where they work on getting that perfect spin rate or degree of break.  And the way they do that is throwing the same pitch over and over again 12 months a year.  While not throwing any other type of pitch.  Which puts a significant amount of undue stress on your arm.

Which leads directly into another analytics-driven problem, which I think is the biggest factor in the high-profile pitching injuries.  These days, it's all about velocity.  Every team has multiple guys in their bullpen who throw 100, and they just trot them out one after another.  You almost can't reach the Majors if you don't throw 100.  The hitters are better, so you need to blow it by them to get them out.  Or, at least that's how the thought process goes.

They aren't expected to go more than an inning or two, so it's go all-out on every pitch for as long as you can go.  There's no need to keep something in the tank since the next guy coming in after you also throws 100 and you're only facing hitters once, so you can let it loose and bring the heat, knowing it'll be a short stint.  But, even then, the repetition of throwing that hard that frequently with such a high intensity takes a toll.

It always amazes me when people wonder how Jamie Moyer was able to have a long Major League career when he topped out in the mid-80s.  Well, that's exactly why.  Hitters were so used to seeing upper-90s heat that Moyer's slow stuff threw off their timing.  And everything Moyer threw was slow crap, so he could rely on more than just one or two pitches.  More significantly, because he didn't throw hard, Moyer never got injured.

While I'm not sure if we'll ever see another Jamie Moyer-type make it to the Majors (and the reason I doubt it is because the analytically-driven focus on velocity has dipped into the lower levels), I sincerely hope we do.  Because he's living proof that you don't need to throw 100 to have a long, successful MLB career as a pitcher.  Not only that, but your likelihood of suffering a serious elbow injury that requires Tommy John surgery is significantly less.  Eventually having Tommy John surgery doesn't have to come with the territory.

When you put all of those things together, I think you have your answer.  There's not one specific reason why pitching injuries are up.  It's all of it.  The pitch clock, not being allowed to use sticky stuff, analytics, the focus on velocity.  They're all factors.  And when you combine more than one of them, the chances of serious injury increase.  As we've seen.

So, what's the answer?  I don't know.  I'm not even sure there is one.  Because that would require MLB first diagnosing the problem and identifying a solution.  Which I'm not entirely sure they're super interested in doing.  This is what baseball has become.  And the pitchers are the ones paying the price.

New Old Looks

Earlier this week, three NFL teams--the Jets, Broncos and Lions--unveiled new uniforms for the 2024 season.  All three of them had some variation of a throwback.  The Lions went away from the "modern" font on their jerseys in favor of a more traditional look, while the Broncos did something similar with their jerseys and also brought back their "D" helmets as an alternate look.  The Jets, meanwhile, took their 1980s New York Sack Exchange throwback from last season and made it their primary logo and uniform moving forward.

More and more teams are introducing a throwback look as an alternate uniform, and fans often like the throwback better than their current uniform/logo.  And some of them, like the Jets, realize the fans are right and go back to it permanently.  They're just the latest example of a team realizing that their classic logo is classic for a reason and didn't actually need modernizing after all.

While we've only seen one other football team (the Giants) completely go back to a throwback logo as their primary full-time (the Rams did it when they moved back to LA, but that was only temporary), this is actually the second time the Jets have done it.  When Bill Parcells arrived as head coach, they adopted a modernized version of their uniforms from the 60s (when they won the Super Bowl).  Now they're going back to the 80s.

Despite the popularity of the throwback looks, no other team has brought theirs back full-time, even though some of them probably should.  In recent years, we've seen Pat the Patriot and Buccaneer Bruce return, as well as the Seahawks' blue jerseys and silver helmets.  The Atlanta Falcons' black jersey/red helmet combo has also made a comeback, along with a 1972 Dolphins throwback and the Eagles' amazing Kelly green.  But, so far, it's just the Jets (and Giants) who've made it permanent.

In the NHL, NBA and MLB, though, we've seen plenty of throwback uniforms make permanent returns.  It seems to be especially prominent in the NHL, where teams introduce throwbacks as a third jersey, only to promote them to the regular uniform because of how much fans love them.  The NHL, in fact, embraces the throwback theme so much that they've built one of their signature events--the Winter Classic--around it.

Ever since the first Winter Classic, the participating teams have worn some variation of a throwback uniform.  Some have directly taken their historical logo and jersey, while others have adapted either their own or another franchise from their city's hockey history.  They even had throwback sweaters for this year's Winter Classic between the Golden Knights (founded in 2017) and the Kraken (founded in 2022).

The Sabres wore their original uniforms in the first Winter Classic.  Shortly thereafter, it was brought back as their primary logo and uniform.  The Islanders had a disastrous attempt at a rebrand that saw their original logo resurrected after just a few years.  The Penguins actually had a decent new logo when they changed it in the 90s, but they still went back to the skating penguin in front of a triangle from their Lemieux-Jagr Stanley Cup years.  After changing their logo when they moved to Glendale, the Coyotes went back to their original Phoenix logo during their final years in the Desert.

Washington is another team that made a logo and color change that wasn't well-received, so the Capitals created a modernized version of their old-school logo (complete with an excellent eagle shoulder logo).  Ditto with the the Ottawa Senators, who modernized the senator in their logo before reverting back to the original.  The Maple Leafs, meanwhile, updated their logo again a few years ago, with the inspiration drawn from their logo in the 60s.

Teams don't even need to have the same name or be in the same place to embrace their history.  The Titans' Oilers throwbacks from last season were amazing!  So were the Avalanche's "reverse retro" jerseys with the Nordiques logo in Avalanche colors, and the Hurricanes' version with the Whalers' logo and colors.  I'm still waiting for the Nationals to rock the Expos' logo.  (Or, even better, for Montreal to get an expansion team when MLB goes to 32 after the A's relocation to Las Vegas is complete.)

What I really love about what the baseball teams have done is how they've taken their beloved, historic logo and modernized it.  Take the Blue Jays, who have some of the nicest uniforms in baseball.  After so many logo changes, they went back to the original and hit a home run.  Same with the Orioles going back to the cartoon bird on the hat.  And the Brewers, who returned to the ball-in-glove, one of the greatest logos ever designed.  (The Phillies have their equally amazing powder blues with the maroon "P" with a baseball in the middle as an alternate uniform.)

There are a number of baseball teams, in fact, that returned to throwback uniforms before that was even a thing.  The Phillies, Giants and White Sox all based their current primary uniforms off of a uniform set from their history.  And it was a glorious day when the Padres went back to the brown & gold, a color scheme that has only ever worked on them!

Over in the NBA, it gets somewhat confusing because every team has like five different uniforms, and many of those have a throwback as one of the options.  And no NBA team has really brought back its classic, throwback look as a regular option.  Two have gone back to a historic logo, though, even if it's with modern uniforms.  The 76ers went through a bunch of different logos before returning to the 13 stars from the original U.S. flag on top of the 7 in their name.  The Hawks, meanwhile, went back to their circular hawk head logo from the 80s (now if they would only bring back the outstanding uniforms that went with them back then).

That seems to be the more common tactic in the NBA.  Not going all the way back to an old logo and uniform, but going back to the old logo and updating the uniform.  That's what the Utah Jazz did with their music note logo and what the Detroit Pistons did when they went back to the basics.

With the popularity of retro logos and uniforms, I'm sure we'll see more return in the future.  It's really more a question of who will be next and which era they'll return to.  And if they'll go all the way back, giving their fans memories of yesteryear, or if they'll put a modern spin on it.  Either way, it's bound to look pretty good!

Already Setting Up For 36

Now it's official.  The Arizona Coyotes will be moving to Utah next season.  Well, technically, Utah is getting an expansion team with all of the Coyotes' players, while the Phoenix franchise is being "put on hold" with the chance of being resurrected if Coyotes owner Alex Meruelo can get an arena built within the next five years.  So, basically, the Arizona Coyotes are getting the Cleveland Browns treatment.

For those of you who aren't old enough to get that reference, 30 years ago, when Art Modell announced he was moving the Browns to Baltimore, the NFL wouldn't let him take the Browns' colors, logo and history with him.  Cleveland was also promised the return of the Browns as an expansion team once the new stadium was built.  So, the Ravens entered the NFL as an "expansion" team in 1996, with the Browns returning to the league in 1999.

The NHL, for its part, seems committed to the Phoenix area.  That's why they're giving Meruelo the opportunity to bring the team back should he win the land auction and the arena project is completed.  Considering the Coyotes' success (or lack thereof) in their previous attempts to get a new arena in Phoenix, I'm skeptical that he'll be successful.  But, for argument's sake, let's assume he is.  That would bring the NHL to 33 teams, which obviously isn't a workable number.

Almost immediately after the Kraken joined the league, the talk began about where the NHL would expand next, even though expansion wasn't on the horizon.  The Salt Lake City thing wasn't even planned.  It moved quickly once it became clear that the Coyotes' situation in Arizona was not sustainable and they needed a more permanent solution.  Although, should the Coyotes return, that expansion talk will kick into high gear again, since the NHL would want to get back to an even number.

I've seen plenty of projections that the NHL will eventually grow to 36 franchises, which doesn't sound all that unrealistic.  It would split nicely into six divisions of six.  Which is obviously a much easier number to deal with than the 17-team conferences that would come with the league being at 34.  One step at a time, though.  Before getting to 36, they'd have to go to 34 first.

One of the cities I've seen mentioned the most, and even considered "inevitable" by some, is Atlanta.  Now, I personally don't see why Atlanta would ever be an option.  Yes, it's a Top 10 market and a chance to establish the NHL in one of America's largest cities.  Except the NHL has already tried and failed in Atlanta twice, with both franchises moving to Canada after a few years.  Maybe the thought process is third time's the charm?  But, it seems more likely it'll be three strikes, you're out.  So, why bother?

When the Coyotes relocation talk started, I actually thought the most logical place for them to move was Houston.  Houston's the biggest market that's never had an NHL team, and the Rockets' arena was built to NHL standards so that it would be able to accommodate a hockey team without having to do any major renovations.  They also had a very successful minor league team, the Aeros, for many years, which would give Houston a built-in fan base.

And, if we're talking about bringing the NHL back to cities that used to have a team, let's not forget Quebec.  Things are much different now than when the Nordiques left Quebec City to become the Avalanche.  Some of those problems would still exist.  Quebec City is still a francophone city that's smaller and further north than anywhere else in the NHL.  But that's not the reason the Nordiques left.  And you can bet a Nordiques redo would work just as well as the Jets' reboot in Winnipeg has.  Quebec also already has an NHL-ready arena, which is a major point in its favor.

Hamilton's been pushing pretty hard for an NHL expansion team, too, but I don't think there's any way Hamilton gets a team (either through expansion or relocation).  It's halfway between Buffalo and Toronto.  Do you really want to put a third team in essentially the same area?  Especially since they're all either Sabres or Leafs fans already?  Would they really abandon the team they've supported for years to adopt an expansion team instead?

There are a few other places that haven't been discussed nearly as much as those four, but I can easily see making a run for an NHL franchise if and when the "new" Coyotes need an expansion partner.  One is Kansas City.  The Penguins almost moved there in 2006, and the T-Mobile Center is a first-rate arena that hosts the Big XII men's basketball tournament every year.

Milwaukee has an AHL team, and I can see the NHL wanting to establish even more of a foothold in the Midwest by placing a team in Wisconsin for the first time.  And, while this one seems unlikely, Portland could be interesting.  The three-way rivalry between Vancouver, Seattle and Portland is perhaps the best in MLS.  Why not trying it in the NHL and seeing if you can recreate some of that same magic?

So, again, for argument's sake, let's assume Phoenix is back in the NHL as the 33rd franchise.  The other team to join the league would have to be from the East to balance out the conferences (although, they could always move Nashville to the East if they needed to).  Which would actually bode well for Atlanta's chances.  Then, when the NHL increases in size to 36 teams, Houston and Quebec City get the nod.

That would set up these conferences and divisions: EAST--Atlantic: Atlanta, Carolina, Columbus, Detroit, Florida, Tampa Bay; Metropolitan: Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Washington; Northeast: Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, Toronto; WEST--Central: Arizona, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Nashville, St. Louis; Northwest: Calgary, Edmonton, Minnesota, Seattle, Winnipeg, Vancouver; Pacific: Anaheim, Colorado, Los Angeles, San Jose, Utah, Vegas

Does the NHL need to expand to 36 teams?  It does not.  At least not in the near future.  That's why the Phoenix situation will be an interesting one to follow.  Because the NHL seems set at 32, but with the promise to resurrect the Coyotes at an undetermined future date, they've essentially committed themselves to further expansion, as well.  That's, of course, assuming an NHL-caliber arena can eventually be built in the Phoenix area.  Which is by no means a guarantee.

Stanley Cup Playoffs, Round 1

I wasn't planning on doing a full Stanley Cup Playoff bracket this season.  Instead, I was just gonna do it round-by-round and hopefully spare myself some of the inevitable unpredictability.  Then my brother-in-law texted me asking to join his NHL Bracket Challenge league, so there went that plan!  So, I guess I'll have to make a call and stick with it.

Before I get to that, though, I've gotta say, the NHL's season-ending schedule was beyond stupid!  The season ended on Thursday, but some teams were done on Monday!  As a result, the Rangers will have almost a week off before the start of the playoffs, while six of the eight Western Conference playoff teams will have two days!

It makes absolutely no sense that each team's final games were spread out so much!  I'm fairly certain that they extended the season until Thursday because of TV (Thursday is ESPN's NHL night), but, if you want to satisfy your TV partners, why not end the season with eight Eastern Conference games on Wednesday and eight Western Conference games on Thursday (or vice versa)?  That makes more sense than having some teams who are done while others still have a back-to-back to end the season.  Or having Nashville sit there with 99 points waiting to find out who they're playing (at least they knew they were already in the playoffs).

The race for the final spot in the East was great.  It came down to Washington, Detroit, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh fighting for one spot.  The Flyers played the Capitals and the Red Wings were in Montreal on Tuesday night, while Pittsburgh was waiting to play the Islanders on Wednesday.  It all got settled on Tuesday, but imagine if the Capitals or Red Wings could do nothing but watch the Penguins to play on Wednesday, hoping they'd lose, knowing that would determine their playoff fate.  (That is what happened in the West, where it was almost like the final day of the group stage at a World Cup, with the Kings and Golden Knights flipping positions with seemingly every goal scored in either game.)

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, it's time to move on to the unpredictability that is the Stanley Cup Playoffs.  Just think about last year, when the Panthers only got in because Pittsburgh lost to Chicago at the end of the regular season, then took out a record-setting, President's Trophy-winning Bruins team en route to a surprise Stanley Cup Final apperance.  And the 2022-23 Bruins became the latest in a long line of President's Trophy winners knocked out in either the first or second round of the playoffs.  That's why I was so adamant in my desire to see the Rangers not win the President's Trophy!  Can they break the curse?

This season, meanwhile, Florida is a legitimate Cup contender.  So are the Rangers.  So are the Bruins.  And the Hurricanes.  That's just in the East!  Out West, you've got the Stars, Canucks, Avalanche, Jets and Oilers.  That's over half the field I can realistically see lifting the Cup two months from now.  But I can also see each of them losing in the first round (either Colorado or Winning definitely will).  Which is part of what makes playoff hockey so great!

Even though this is the Stanley Cup Playoffs and the early-round upsets have become expected, I do think that form will at least somewhat hold.  There are a few matchups between evenly-matched teams, but there are others where the higher-seeded team is very clearly better.  While we've seen that make absolutely no difference at times in the past, we've also seen superior teams start their Stanley Cup runs with dominant first-round showings.

Panthers vs. Lightning: As much as I didn't want the Rangers to win the President's Trophy, I did want them to win the Metropolitan Division.  Why?  Because I had absolutely no interest in facing Tampa Bay!  I doubt that's something the Panthers were looking forward to, either, but here we go.  The two Florida teams have won the last four Prince of Wales Trophies between them, so they're obviously both battle-tested.  And they'll make each other grind it out.  Ultimately, though, I think we see the same result as when these two met in the second round two years ago.  Lightning in six.

Bruins vs. Maple Leafs: Boston and Toronto both have a chip on their shoulder.  The Bruins, of course, suffered that first-round loss at the hands of the Panthers last season.  The Leafs, meanwhile, actually advanced to the second round for the first time in forever, only to become Florida's next victims.  They finally got that monkey off their backs, but you know they come in still thinking they've got a lot to prove.  Which they do.  So do the Bruins.  This'll be a great series, and it'll likely end the same way every Toronto series prior to last season did.  Bruins in seven.

Rangers vs. Capitals: Washington somehow emerged from that crazy, jumbled race for the final Eastern Conference playoff spot.  I'm still not entirely sure how.  The Capitals are, by far, the weakest of the 16 playoff teams.  Although, as we've seen, that means absolutely nothing.  That doesn't mean the Rangers should or will take them lightly, however.  I can see the Capitals taking a game or two off them, but definitely not four.  Rangers in five.

Hurricanes vs. Islanders: For the second straight season, Carolina meets the Islanders in the first round.  Last year, the Hurricanes won in six, with two of those victories coming in overtime.  This year, I can see it going either way.  Carolina is the better team, but the Islanders are on quite a roll entering the playoffs.  Either way, Sebastian Aho makes it to the second round.  Hurricanes in six.

Stars vs. Golden Knights: We've got a rematch of the 2023 Western Conference Final in the first round of this year's playoffs, as Dallas takes on the defending Stanley Cup champion Golden Knights.  Vegas dropped from third in the Pacific to the second wild card by losing its last game, which gave it the far more difficult matchup against Dallas.  There's something about the Knights that just doesn't give off the same feeling as last season's championship team, but only a fool would count them out.  Regardless, I do think Dallas wins the series.  Stars in six.

Jets vs. Avalanche: After that three-team race in the Central, it was Winnipeg who ended up with home ice in the first-round series between legit Cup contenders.  That mattered far more for the Jets than it would've for the Avalanche.  While it would've been nice for Colorado, they can win without it.  I'm not sure the Jets could.  Frankly, I'm not even sure the Jets can even though they do.  Whoever does win this series, though, has every reason to believe it's just the start of something big.  Avalanche in seven.

Canucks vs. Predators: In January, I went to a Rangers-Canucks game at Madison Square Garden.  Until that game, I had no idea how good Vancouver actually was!  The Canucks are arguably the deepest, most well-balanced team in the NHL, and they absolutely deserve to be considered one of the Cup favorites.  First, they need to get by Nashville, which shouldn't be much of a challenge.  Canucks in four.

Oilers vs. Kings: Edmonton and LA meet in the Pacific 2-3 series for the third consecutive time.  So, needless to say, they're familiar with each other.  Especially at this time of year.  I'm still waiting for that Oilers playoff breakthrough that's been coming, but we still haven't seen yet.  (They did make the Western Conference Final in 2022, but were swept by Colorado.)  Edmonton has won its playoff matchup with the Kings in each of the last two seasons.  Make it three.  Oilers in six.

So, there you go.  Those are my first-round picks.  But, as I said, I filled out a full bracket going all the way to the Stanley Cup Final.  And I keep going back to that Rangers-Canucks game I saw in January.  They looked like the two best teams in the NHL then, and they're still the two best teams in the league now.  Thirty years after they met in that memorable 1994 Stanley Cup Final, they square off again.  And the result will be the same as 1994.  President's Trophy jinx?  What President's Trophy jinx?!  The Rangers get past the Canucks for the Cup once again.

They Knew Exactly What They Were Doing

Last week at an event in Paris, Nike revealed some of its Olympic track & field, basketball, soccer and skateboarding uniforms for a number of countries, including the United States.  The event featured several American Olympic and Paralympic track & field stars, including Rai Benjamin, Sha'Carri Richardson, Athing Mu and Tatyana McFadden modeling the uniforms, with images of both the men's and women's kits later released online.  To say those images caused controversy would be a bit of an understatement.  Which might be exactly what Nike wanted.

I'm actually amused by how stupid this controversy is.  Because it's not actually a controversy!  But that hasn't stopped the so-called "experts" from speaking out as if they know what they're talking about when, in reality, they have no clue.  And, frankly, all they're doing with their fake "outrage" is exposing their ignorance on the subject!

For those of you who haven't seen it, the controversy centers around the women's uniform.  The design that Nike chose to feature (which anyone who knows anything about track & field knows is one of many options) was the one-piece, bathing-suit style version, which has been called everything from "sexist" to "patriarchal" by critics.  (There were also some very humorous comments from members of the U.S. women's track & field team.)  Some have even questioned who designed them and wondered how women can be expected to perform in them.

When I first saw them, I didn't like them, either.  But my reaction was more "Boy, are these ugly!"  And also, "Why are they purple?"  (I think they're technically supposed to be primarily blue, but it definitely looks purple, just like how the Tokyo version of the same uniform was evidently supposed to be red, but looked pink.)  They're also essentially the exact same uniforms the British women's team has worn since Tokyo (Nike is a sponsor of British Athletics, but not the British Olympic Committee, which is sponsored by Adidas, so the British team wears Adidas in the Olympics, then Nike at all other times).

But, like I said, I'm amused by the reaction to the uniforms and some of the asinine comments from the critics.  Some of those critics include former Olympic runners like Lauren Fleshman, who was incredibly vocal on Instagram, but really just made herself look like an idiot.  Fleshman has been on multiple U.S. National Teams.  She should know as well as anybody that there are multiple options.  The women can even wear the men's uniform if they want!

That to me is the funniest part of the entire thing.  There were three American female track & field Olympians at the reveal.  They were all wearing different styles of the uniform, and NONE of them had on the one-piece in question!  Sha'Carri Richardson came the closest.  She wore the one-piece uniform, but it was with spandex instead of briefs.  So, there's obviously more than just the one option!  (As anyone who's ever watched track & field before already knew!)

It even got to the point where both Nike and USA Track & Field had to clarify there are many options for the women to choose from.  And they were both sure to mention that the uniforms were designed after consultation with numerous parties, including the athletes themselves!  Katie Moon, the reigning Olympic and World Champion in the pole vault, went on Instagram to not just respond to Fleshman, but to flat-out state that she prefers to wear the briefs, as well as her reason why.

The fact that she had to say that, frankly, is ridiculous.  It's not sexist if the women are given options (which they are).  And it's really not sexist if they choose to wear a particular uniform!  It's obviously about performance.  If it wasn't, they wouldn't wear it.  Shouldn't it tell you something that they have the choice and still pick the one that the ignorant have decided is sexist?

Same thing in beach volleyball, which was inevitably going to be brought into the conversation.  They aren't required to wear bikinis.  Many of them do anyway.  Not just because they're more comfortable in them, but also because it's hot and because there's less places for sand to get stuck.  But they can also wear leggings or long-sleeved tops if they want to.  And there are Arab countries that have women's beach volleyball teams.  Those athletes obviously don't wear bikinis for religious reasons.

This is nothing new for track & field, either.  The one-piece uniform style in question goes all the way back to at least 1984 and 1988, when it was worn by Florence Griffith-Joyner.  Maybe even further.  It fell out of style for a little while in favor of the crop top and racing briefs, but gradually started to come back and was an option for every Nike-sponsored country at the Tokyo Games.  At the request of the athletes!  British sprinter Dina Asher-Smith likes the one-piece better than the other options and wears it all the time.

Comparing the men's and women's uniforms is also an incredibly dumb argument.  That's like asking why women's bathing suits cover their chest and men's bathing suits don't.  Because there are anatomical differences between men and women that make having the same uniform not only impractical, but impossible!  Meanwhile, both Nike and USA Track & Field have said the women can wear the men's uniform if they want to (just as the disgraced Marion Jones did), further invalidating that argument.

Track & field uniforms are also very event-specific.  They've never been a one-size-fits-all type of thing.  Throwers and distance runners have very different body types.  They're not expected to wear the same style of the uniform, and they don't.  Athletes can wear whichever style they want, and there's even been events where three Americans in the same race have worn three different uniforms.  Although, that may not be the case in finals in Paris.

Since 2008, Nike has had a different singlet just for the relays.  At this Olympics, for the first time, if an athlete makes it to the final in their event, they'll get a separate, finals-only uniform top, as well.  There's even a one-piece version of the women's finals uniform should they choose, as well as all of the others...which, with all of the different variations, number over 20.

But nobody's talking about that.  They're only talking about the "sexist" singlet that they saw on a mannequin (not even an actual athlete).  They are talking about it, though.  And that might be the whole point.  Because there's no such thing as bad publicity, right?  Suddenly people care and all sorts of articles are being written about Nike's Olympic track & field uniforms...which likely wouldn't have happened otherwise.  And Nike knows that.  We'll never know if it was deliberate or not, but Nike probably isn't complaining about the amount of attention this story has drawn.  In fact, it may have been exactly what they wanted.

Yankees Win, Theeeeeeeeee Yankees Win!

The summer between my junior and senior years of college, I went down to Baltimore for a Yankees-Orioles series.  Mr. Jim was gracious enough to get me a press credential for two of the games.  I majored in communications and wanted to get into broadcasting, so, on Friday night, as we're having dinner in the press box, he says hello to John Sterling and asks him if he'd be OK with me sitting in the Yankees radio booth that night...to which he agreed.

Towards the end of the game, the producer, who I'd been sitting next to the entire time, takes a look at my credential and I can tell he's upset about something.  I figured I'd worn out my welcome, so I was politely gonna just slip out of the booth.  As it turns out, that wasn't the case at all.  He was upset because he wanted me to go down to the field, but I couldn't since I didn't have field access.

He tracked down one of the Yankees' PR people, who escorted me down to the field so that I could bring a microphone down for them to do a postgame interview with the player of the game.  The player of the game in this case was Aaron Boone (yes, the same Aaron Boone who's currently the team's manager).  After the interview was over, my route back to the press box was through the Yankee clubhouse, as the players and coaches started filing in.  The first person I see?  Don Zimmer.

Needless to say, it was pretty cool.  And, as you can tell, I remember it fondly 20 years later.  Perhaps the most memorable part of the experience was John Sterling's kindness and graciousness.  He was so kind and gracious that I wrote him a letter afterwards thanking him.  He responded, sending the letter back to me with a note from him attached.

That's my John Sterling story.  So many others have their own.  His voice was the soundtrack of Yankees games for generations of fans.  Everyone has their favorite home run call (I loved "Bern Baby Bern" and "An A-Bomb From A-Rod"), and, depending on your fandom, you either absolutely loved it or were incredibly irritated by it when he capped the broadcast with his drawn out "Yankees Win, Theeeeeeeeee Yankees Win!"

Well, we've heard that signature call for the last time.  Because Sterling has announced his retirement, effective immediately, ending a 36-year run in the Yankees radio booth.  His last game (and his last "Yankees Win, Theeeeeeeeeeeee Yankees Win!") was last Sunday's victory over Toronto.

While the team didn't release any information other than their statement saying Sterling was retiring, the general consensus is that it was for health reasons.  Sterling turns 86 years old on the 4th of July and, after an incredible ironman streak, all of the travel definitely took a toll on him.  As a result, he's been phasing himself out, working a reduced schedule for the past few seasons.  Still, Sterling didn't give any indication he was thinking about retirement until Monday's announcement.

Which is why I think the decision to retire immediately has to be health-related.  When Vin Scully decided to hang it up, he announced it well in advance and was given a bit of a farewell tour.  Sterling would've been given the same had he announced that this would be his final season, especially this early.  Instead, he'll be honored at Yankee Stadium on Saturday before riding off into the sunset (although, I'd imagine they'll probably ask him to still come back to emcee Old Timer's Day).

Every generation of Yankees fans has had that voice narrating an era of the team's history for them.  From Mel Allen and Red Barber to Phil Rizzuto, Bill White and Bobby Murcer to John Sterling and Michael Kay, then Sterling and Suzyn Waldman.  There have been so many memorable Yankees moments over the past 36 years.  John Sterling was behind the mic for almost all of them.

After joining the Yankees in 1989, Sterling had an incredible streak of 5,060 consecutive games broadcast (regular season and playoffs) before missing a series in Tampa due to illness in July 2019.  Overall, Sterling called a total of 5,420 regular season and 211 postseason games over 36 seasons.  Once that ironman streak ended, he cut back his load, limiting himself to home games and shorter road trips (Boston, Philadelphia, Citi Field) in recent years.

Even then, he was a trooper.  Last season, Justin Turner of the Red Sox hit a foul ball into the Yankees' radio booth, and it hit Sterling in the head!  There was even an audible "Ow!" on the broadcast.  Sterling didn't miss a beat and called the rest of the game with a huge bandage on his head.  Turner signed the ball and sent it back to him the next day with a band-aid on it!

You know how beloved he is amongst Yankee fans not just because everybody has a John Sterling impression, but by the fact that anytime there's some sort of John Sterling promotional item, it's one of the most popular giveaway days at Yankee Stadium.  Every line extended around the block well before the gates opened.  Because everyone wanted to make sure they got their John & Suzyn bobblehead and t-shirt.

And let's not forget those individualized home run calls for every Yankees player.  It was always so much fun whenever they got somebody new to hear what he'd come up with for their first home run.  The wait was sometimes agonizing.  We just wanted to know!  Fortunately, two of the newest Yankees--Juan Soto and Alex Verdugo--both hit home runs on the opening road trip (that Sterling called), which got them calls.  Soto's was "There is a Soto photo...He's Juan-derful, he's marvelous," while Verdugo got "Alexander the Great."

I must admit that even though it's become a more regular occurrence in recent seasons, I'd still get thrown off when I'd be in my car, put the Yankee game on the radio, and not hear those home run calls.  John Sterling has been a fixture in that booth for so long that you notice when he isn't there.  Well, now he won't be.  That role instead belongs to Justin Shackil and Emmanuel Berbari, who are both young and will have a chance to forge their own legacy as the Yankees' longtime radio voice.  But, even they'll be the first to admit that they've got big shoes to fill.

The Best of the Best

After her EPIC takedown of Michael Che during her surprise appearance on Weekend Update, you can add "has great comedic timing" to Caitlin Clark's list of skills!  Now, as she gets set to become the No. 1 pick of the Indiana Fever (which is a WNBA team, not an STD Michael Che gave to women at Purdue) and embark on her pro career, she'll have her chance to prove her critics wrong.  We'll also get to see how she stacks up against the best of the best in women's basketball.

Clark's career at Iowa was great.  There's no denying that.  It was transcendent.  There's no denying that, either.  It was arguably the most influential career for any women's college basketball player in history.  But was it the best?  That's an entirely different question.  And a much more complicated one.

She's the greatest scorer in college basketball history.  That much is obvious, and the stats back it up.  Clark had more points than anyone, man or woman, ever to play Division I basketball.  Yes, there was all the discussion about caveats, some of which was justified, some of which wasn't.  But being a great scorer alone doesn't necessarily make you the best.  So, I'd argue that while she's one of the best women's college players ever, she isn't the best.

Iowa made it to both the 2023 and 2024 National Championship Games, losing both.  Had they won, would that change my perception of where Clark's career ranks?  Perhaps.  Leading your team to a championship (or multiple championships) is a very important factor.  That's why I rank these players' careers (in no particular order) ahead of Caitlin Clark's:

Breanna Stewart: You're gonna see a lot of UConn players on this list.  There's an obvious reason for that.  And Stewie's right there at the top.  She played four years for the Huskies.  She won four championships and was Final Four Most Outstanding Player every time.  She was also the first three-time National Player of the Year.

Sue Bird: When Sue Bird arrived in Storrs, UConn had won only a single National title in 1994-95.  By the time she left, it was the start of a dynasty.  Bird was a sophomore on the 2000 National Championship team, then, after the Huskies lost in the 2001 Final Four, they wouldn't lose again for a long while.  The 2001-02 UConn team was one for the ages.  Bird was the National Player of the Year on a team that went 39-0 before moving on to the WNBA and passing the torch to...

Diana Taurasi: Taurasi picked up right where Bird left off.  She was a freshman on that 2000-01 team that lost to Notre Dame in the Final Four.  UConn went on to win the next three National Championships during what has since been referred to as the "Taurasi Era," including that incredible 2001-02 campaign.  Taurasi received back-to-back National Player of the Year nods in her junior and senior seasons.

Maya Moore: If ranking UConn's eras of dominance in order, it would probably go "Breanna Stewart Era," then "Maya Moore Era."  It's while they had Maya Moore that the Huskies went on their 90-game winning streak (which, it's crazy to think, is only the second-longest in program history!), including consecutive undefeated National Championships in 2008-09 and 2009-10.  The winning streak ended during the 2010-11 season, and they lost in the Final Four that year.  So, Moore had "only" two National titles to go along with her two National Player of the Year awards.

Tina Charles: It's easy to forget about Tina Charles (and Renee Montgomery, for that matter) because she was a teammate of Maya Moore.  But it's Charles who completes my all-time UConn starting five (joining the other four on this list).  She was the 2009-10 National Player of the Year and graduated as both UConn's all-time leading scorer and rebounder.  The Huskies won National Championships in her junior and senior years, going undefeated each time.

Candace Parker: Parker was hurt as a freshman, so she only played three years at Tennessee.  They were three damn good years!  In 2006-07, the Lady Vols won their first National Championship in a decade.  They repeated in 2007-08, the last title for the late, great Pat Summitt (as well as the program's most recent championship).  Parker was Final Four Most Outstanding Player both times and National Player of the Year in 2007-08.

Chamique Holdsclaw: Tennessee was a dynasty in the late 90s, becoming the first women's program ever to three-peat as National Champions.  Those just happened to come in Chamique Holdsclaw's first three years with the program (1996-98).  And that 1997-98 Tennessee team was one of the absolute best in history, going 39-0.  Holdsclaw was National Player of the Year that season, then won it again as a senior.

Cheryl Miller: The first NCAA-sponsored women's basketball tournament was in 1982.  It was won by Louisiana Tech.  USC, led by the great Cheryl Miller, won the next two.  She's much more than Reggie Miller's older sister.  She was the first women's basketball superstar of the NCAA era!  A four-time All-American, three-time National Player of the Year, two-time Final Four MVP, and still the third-leading rebounder in NCAA women's history.

Brittney Griner: As crazy as it sounds, Brittney Griner only won one National title at Baylor.  It's hard to believe because of how outstanding her college career was, but Baylor's only National Championship with Griner came during the dominant 2011-12 season.  Griner was National Player of the Year and Final Four MOP, as the Bears went 40-0.  She repeated as National Player of the Year the following season.

So, that leaves me with just one spot on my all-time women's college basketball Top 10.  With three players I want to include.  Which means that we're not looking at a Top 10 here.  We're looking at a Top 12.

One of those three is obviously Caitlin Clark.  What she's done is unmatched and simply too much to ignore.  Another is the woman whose team beat Iowa in the National Championship Game--South Carolina (and U.S. Olympic) coach Dawn Staley.  Staley's playing career at Virginia was actually very similar to Clark's.  She was a two-time National Player of the Year who led Virginia to three straight Final Fours...but no championships.

Finally, we've got Seimone Augustus.  She was there for the first three of LSU's five straight Final Fours in the mid-2000s.  They didn't win a title because they ran into three juggernauts from UConn (2004), Baylor (2005) and Maryland (2006), but Augustus was named National Player of the Year twice.  Sorry Angel Reese, but you're not LSU's all-time best player.  Seimone Augustus is.

Utah Coyotes

It's official.  After nearly 30 years in the desert, the Arizona Coyotes will soon be no more.  The franchise will be moving to Utah next season, ending years of uncertainty and financial instability as they tried to make it work.  This result seemed inevitable, however, and will hopefully go better than the Arizona experiment did.

Nothing is official yet, but Coyotes players and staff were informed about the relocation prior to Friday's game, so it's basically a done deal.  The formal announcement is expected next week.  The Coyotes will be sold to the owners of the Utah Jazz and begin playing in Salt Lake City under a new name next season.  The "Coyotes" name, logo and colors will remain with Phoenix, in hopes of reactivating the franchise in the future.

Ever since the team got kicked out of its arena in Glendale, the Coyotes have lived a nomadic existence as they looked for a place to play that would allow them to stay in the Phoenix area.  They've been playing at Arizona State's 5,000-seat Mullet Arena, which isn't anything close to an NHL-caliber venue.  The team has been losing money left and right since the move, but have no other alternatives at the moment.  That seems to have been the last straw that made the NHL finally pull the plug.

Coyotes owner Alex Meruelo's most recent venue plan involves a state-run land auction on June 27.  Should the team win the auction, that would become the site of their privately-funded new arena.  The plan for what would happen should the team not have the highest bid was unclear, but it likely would've involved staying at Arizona State longer.  Which is something they'd have to do anyway while the new arena was being built.

That didn't work for the NHL.  They were skeptical about the timeline and decided they needed something a little more concrete for next season.  As a result, the league told Meruelo that a sale would be the best course of action.  For his part, Meruelo will maintain a hockey presence in Phoenix, which the NHL also wants.  In fact, the sale agreement is expected to include a clause that gives Meruelo first dibs on an expansion franchise if he can get the arena situation figured out within the next five years.

(Before I move on, there's something about all this NHL expansion talk that's really been bothering me.  It's not just the idea that people won't shut up about it, even though the NHL literally just expanded and is at a nice, even 32 teams.  While expanding to 36 does seem like the next logical step, they aren't even close to there yet.  Beyond that, though, why do "experts" keep saying Atlanta is "definitely" getting a team when expansion does happen?  Atlanta, a city that's already lost two different teams to Canada!  Do they think it'll be third time's the charm?  Or is this just a ploy to get Quebec a new team once hockey in Atlanta fails again?)

Anyway, back to the Coyotes.  Meruelo will still participate in the auction and still hopes to build his arena on that 95-acre parcel of land in north Phoenix.  The complex will also include the team's practice facility, as well as a theater, housing units and retail space.  So, he doesn't want to just build an arena.  He wants to build an entire entertainment district (a la the Atlanta Braves).  It's all contingent on him winning the auction, though, so you can see why the NHL was hesitant to endorse the project...which would still take a few years to film, and they'd still need a temporary solution in the meantime.

The Delta Center in Salt Lake City, where the Jazz have played since 1991, isn't a permanent solution, either.  It's fine for a temporary facility, but the NHL has made it clear that hockey-specific upgrades must be performed in order for it to become the Coyotes' permanent home.  The difference with Salt Lake City, though, is that the Utah State Senate has already approved the funding for a renovated downtown entertainment district, which also has the support of the governor.  So, it looks like a new arena for the Jazz and Coyotes (that would also likely figure into the city's plans for the 2034 Winter Olympics) is happening.

And with a relocation to Salt Lake City and potential new arena, that will hopefully put an end to all the uncertainty surrounding the Arizona Coyotes.  In a way, you've got to give the NHL credit for sticking it out in Phoenix as long as they did.  Sure, some of the factors that led to the Coyotes' situation were outside of their control.  But it's also a franchise that had long been plagued by mismanagement and bankruptcy, including a span where it was owned by the league.  So, it's not like you couldn't see this relocation coming.  And, who knows?  Maybe all they need is a fresh start somewhere else (with that somewhere else being Salt Lake City).

Would the NHL in Phoenix have worked had the franchise not been so poorly run and had a stable arena situation?  Perhaps.  I guess that's why the NHL is committed to maintaining a presence in the area.  And it's easy to understand why.  Auston Matthews is one of the best players in the game right now.  He's from Phoenix.  If not for the Coyotes, he might not even be a hockey player.  Not to mention the size of the Phoenix market.  It's the 11th-biggest in the U.S., which will make it one of the largest not to have a full complement of teams in the four major sports (Phoenix also doesn't have an MLS team, while the Mercury are one of three WNBA franchises from the inaugural season still playing in their original city).

Salt Lake City, meanwhile, is about to become a two-team market after decades of the Jazz being the only game in town (they also have the Salt Lake Bees, the Angels' Triple-A affiliate, and Salt Lake City was one of the options being discussed for the A's before they settled on Sacramento).  I'm curious to see what the response will be.  There's no reason to think it won't be a successful hockey market, especially since they made it very clear they wanted the team.  And I don't think the NHL would be going there if it considered Salt Lake City a risk.  After all, look at how well they did with Las Vegas and Seattle!

But, is Salt Lake City ready to have a second pro team?  One that won't just be sharing an arena with the Jazz, but will be playing an overlapping season with them?  (They also have an MLS squad, Real Salt Lake, in addition to the Bees, and the Utah Grizzlies are a minor league hockey team that currently plays in the ECHL.)  I would imagine Major League Baseball will also be keeping a close eye on the success of the NHL in Salt Lake City as they begin considering cities for their next round of expansion, which seems like it will probably kick off once the A's officially move to Las Vegas in 2028.  

As for Arizona, it was an ambitious move when they relocated from Winnipeg to a completely untapped market in 1996.  They lasted a lot longer than some people thought, and their failure wasn't from lack of trying.  And it's certainly worth wondering if things might've gone differently had the team been more successful on the ice.  But, as one chapter ends in Phoenix, a new one begins in Salt Lake City.

This location feels so different than what's going on with the A's, too.  In Oakland, the fans are angry.  In Phoenix, does anyone even care?  Will they even miss the Coyotes?  The fact that I'm even asking those questions make it pretty clear that moving the team is the right decision.  For all involved.

Gold Is Where the Money Is

When the Modern Olympics were conceived 130 years ago, they were intended to be competition between amateurs.  While that seems like a quaint, romantic notion now, it really was a sign of the times.  In the 1890s, sports weren't a profession.  They were leisurely activities the well-to-do did to pass the time.

A lot has changed since then.  Obviously.  Sports have become a multi-billion-dollar business, and it's very much a full-time profession for the athletes, many of whom are well compensated.  Even the Olympics have long since transitioned away from competition between amateurs.  While there are still plenty of amateurs involved, the Olympics have been mainly professional since the 1992 Games in Barcelona. 

Some countries even offer financial rewards for their medalists.  The USOPC, for example, will award $37,500 for a gold medal, $22,500 for silver and $15,000 for bronze in Paris.  That's actually on the low end compared to what some other countries give their Olympic medalists!  (Although, in fairness, with the number of medals the U.S. figures to win, that's an investment of well over $1 million being committed by the USOPC.)

It's not just countries that have the discretion to financially compensate Olympic medalists.  International federations are free to do the same.  And in Paris, World Athletics will become the first.  World Athletics President Sebastian Coe announced on Wednesday that the federation is earmarking $2.4 million of its IOC funding as prize money for the winners.  Gold medalists will receive $50,000 each (in the five relays, the members will split it).  While prize money will only go to the gold medalists in Paris, that will be expanded to the silver and bronze medalists, as well, in LA.

This, frankly, was a long time coming.  Track & field will be the first sport to offer Olympic prize money, but it surely won't be the last!  The question in LA won't be if any other international federations follow suit, but how many?  And, now that this can of worms has been opened, will the IOC leave it up to the international federations?  Or will they directly pay the athletes themselves?

The argument against awarding prize money at the Olympics has always been that athletes don't need any extra incentive to win an Olympic medal.  The Olympic medal itself is worth far more than any prize money.  While that's true, the awarding of prize money won't take away any of that prestige.  The Olympic gold medal is still the Olympic gold medal, the pinnacle of sporting achievement.  Also receiving prize money won't change that.

All the decision to award prize money to the gold medalists does is acknowledge the reality that these are professional athletes who deserve to be compensated as such.  The Olympics are no longer an amateur endeavor.  They haven't been in a long time.  Yet, the Olympics--the biggest competition of them all--remained the only major event that didn't award any prize money.  At the World Athletics Championships, they've awarded prize money since 1997, and they also have a $100,000 world record bonus.  So, this is nothing new for the sport.

World Athletics receives one of the biggest shares of IOC revenue.  The $2.4 million being set aside for the gold medalists is just a small portion of that.  Athletes will also receive less for winning in Paris than they did at last year's World Championships in Budapest, where the gold medalists earned $70,000 each.  None of that is the point.  The point is that winning an Olympic gold medal will get you paid.  A just reward for all the years of work put in.

Seb Coe was an Olympic gold medalist himself.  He's always been forward-thinking and athlete-first.  So, it's really no surprise that the sport he leads would be the trendsetter.  It's not the first time track & field has been at the forefront of change.  World Athletics first banned Russia because of the country's doping problems in 2015, long before the other international federations and the IOC.  Here we are, nine years later, and that ban is still in effect (although, now it's also because of the invasion of Ukraine).

Much like the NCAA and the NIL, the decision by World Athletics to award Olympic prize money is an acknowledgement of the athletes' role in generating that massive revenue.  They deserve a piece of that pie.  And $50,000 is not an insignificant amount, either.  That's $50,000 per event, too.  If Noah Lyles wins four gold medals, which is definitely possible, he'll earn $125,000.  Now, while that may not seem like much for a well-compensated brand name like Noah Lyles, just think about how much of a difference $50,000 can make for athletes from smaller countries (in addition to whatever they get from their national federation).

One of the most important points made in the World Athletics announcement was that prize money won't be paid until the ratification process has been completed.  Athletes must also successfully complete all of the anti-doping procedures.  That, to me, is the biggest potential issue.  We've seen Olympic results changed years after the fact because of doping violations.  (They're still changing the results from London, 12 years later!)  Now we're looking at the possibility of dopers receiving prize money, as well as the medal, that they'll have to give back, as well as someone who'll have to be upgraded and paid the prize money they're owed well after the fact.

Even still, there's no way to look at this development as anything other than a good thing.  It seemed like a natural and inevitable progression, too.  Representing your country at an Olympics is honor enough.  But these are also professional athletes, so the idea of them competing for nothing in the year 2024 really was kind of illogical.  Especially with the amount of money generated (for everybody else) by the Olympics.

In his statement, Coe acknowledged that.  Gone are the days when athletes competed for nothing more than per diem and national pride.  Track & field simply changed with the times, which Coe doesn't think is at odds with the IOC's ideals.  In fact, he thinks it only further emphasizes the IOC's focus on the athletes--the ones who there would be no Olympic Games without.  And, while IOC President Thomas Bach hasn't commented one way or the other, Paris 2024 President Tony Estanguet is all for it.

Throughout the leadup, they've been promising that the Paris Games will be unlike any Olympics we've ever seen.  We can add another innovation to the list.  The Paris Olympics will be the first where gold medalists receive prize money directly from their international federation.  So what if it's only in track & field?  It's a start.  And a big one at that.

The Times, They Ain't A Changin

Part of the ritual of March Madness is the annual complaints about the start time of the men's Championship Game.  Even though it's been at 9:00 for my entire life, that somehow still seems to surprise people every year.  And, even among the people who do know it's always at 9:00, the common refrain is that it starts "too late."  Well, as I said, the start time has been the same for 40 years, so don't expect it to be changing anytime soon!  And, frankly, there's no reason to change it.  If there was, they would've done it already.

Most of the complaining about the 9:00 start time comes from the East Coast, where people don't want to stay up until 11:30 to see the end.  Except, here's the thing that those people forget...9:00 on the East Coast is 6:00 on the West Coast.  And the game is on a Monday.  So, if you start any earlier, people on the West Coast aren't able to watch the start of the game.  Because they're still on the way home from work!

Also, how often is the Final Four actually played on the East Coast?  Almost never.  In fact, Atlanta, Indianapolis and Detroit are the only cities in the Eastern time zone that even have the domed football stadiums with the appropriate seating capacity, and two of them are in the Midwest!  The others are all in the Central and Pacific time zones....where the game starts at either 8:00 or 6:00 local time!  That's certainly more convenient for fans attending the game in those Midwestern cities.

It's also worth noting that we're talking about a two-hour basketball game here.  Even with the longer timeouts and extra commercials during the NCAA Tournament, games still run in the 2:10-2:15 range.  Which means that even with a 9:20 tip-off (which, again, has been the standard for years), the game's ending at around 11:30 and CBS/TBS is signing off at about midnight.  Sure, overtime makes it end later, but even with overtime, the game itself will still end at like 11:45 at the latest.

I understand why some people on the East Coast consider that "too late," but there aren't really many alternatives here.  It's a Monday night!  Prime time TV on weeknights starts at 8:00, so it's not starting before 8, and that wouldn't account for a pregame show (and the important sponsors it attracts).  And, even if you were to split the difference and go with an 8:30 start, it would actually be an 8:45 tip-off, so it's still ending around 11, which will still be "too late" for some fans (and way too early for some others).

That complaining about the start time of the final has now spilled over to the women's side, as well.  Last year, the Women's Championship Game was moved to 3:00 on Sunday afternoon, with the broadcast switched from ESPN to ABC.  The afternoon slot on the more widely-distributed network has resulted in record ratings for both finals that have been on ABC (the fact that they both featured Caitlin Clark certainly helped, too).  ESPN's new contract with the NCAA starts next season, and you can bet the Sunday afternoon Women's Championship Game is also here to stay.

With the women, it's the opposite complaint.  Many people feel that 3:00 is too early.  They'd rather the start be later in the afternoon or even during the evening.  There are even some who'd like to see Sunday night, citing the success of Sunday Night Football as their rationale.  While a later start may be possible, Sunday night's not gonna happen.

Sunday is one of ABC's strongest and most consistent nights in the Spring.  America's Funniest Home Videos comes on at 7 and is the lead-in to American Idol.  Do you really think ABC's gonna run the risk of American Idol starting late because the basketball game ran long?  Absolutely no chance!  And I doubt they're willing to mess with AFV, their Sunday night staple, either, which means the Women's Championship Game needs to be off the air by 7.

The biggest problem with the women's game doesn't even seem to be the 3:00 start as much as the fact that ABC only allotted two-and-a-half hours for the game.  That led to a very awkward situation where they began the postgame show just before 5:30, only for ABC to abruptly go off the air and cut to commercial before switching to other programming (which, in a lot of markets, was an infomercial).  Postgame coverage continued on ESPN, but they didn't tell people that, making the cut away even more abrupt.

This, really, is a very easy problem to fix.  Instead of only staying on the air until 5:30, go that extra half hour until 6:00.  That gives them a little more flexibility for overtime, too.  Tip-off between South Carolina and Iowa was at pretty much 3:00 on the nose.  That extra half hour, though, would allow them to move the tip-off to 3:10-3:15 and still leave plenty of time for the trophy presentation and postgame, even if there's overtime.  Then they can still go to the local news at 6 or, worst-case, preempt the local news and allow AFV to start on time at 7.

Starting any earlier isn't really possible since 3:00 Eastern is noon Pacific.  Starting later sounds good in theory, but the number of people who've watched in the last two years when it started at 3 suggest they've found a time that works for most fans.  So, even going to 4:00 doesn't seem like a viable option.  Not just because it would potentially impact ABC's Sunday night schedule, but because what they're already doing is working fine.  Which is why I suggest only pushing it back a little and extending the postgame until 6:00.

ESPN's contract with the NCAA included increased exposure for all women's sports, not just basketball.  And that Sunday at 3:00 timeslot is when the women's sports have typically been featured.  The volleyball championship match was in that spot in December.  With the expanded women's offerings in the new contract, they'll likely continue to fall in that Sunday at 3:00 timeslot.  If that's already been established as the start time, why mess with it?

And, let's not forget, the women pulled in a record number of viewers this year...with the game starting at 3:00.  The Women's Championship Game even outdrew the Men's Championship Game for the first time, which can also be attributed to the move to ABC (this was a TBS year for the men, so it wouldn't surprise me if that impacted the ratings).  Moving the game to ABC was obviously the right move.  So, even if it was ABC who decided on the 3:00 start time, that's a trade-off the NCAA is absolutely willing to make.  The wisdom behind it has already been proven.

So, it doesn't look like the NCAA is in any rush to change the start time of either basketball Championship Game.  Some fans may be inconvenienced by the men's game starting "too late" or the women's game starting "too early," but that hasn't stopped people from watching.  And it looks like they'll continue to watch the men on Monday at 9 and the women on Sunday at 3.  So, they'd better get used to it.

Not "Rooted" In Oakland

Throughout the whole A's relocation saga, one thing has really bothered me.  The City of Oakland's attitude.  The city and A's fans have acted so entitled, saying things like the A's "belong" in Oakland.  Sorry, but your outrage is fake.  You only "care" now because the team is leaving.  When the reason the team is leaving is because of the city's and fans' apathy towards the team for years, which is what led directly to their decision.

It's also why I'm glad that the A's won't be staying in Oakland beyond this season.  Their stadium in Las Vegas won't be ready until 2028 at the earliest, so they needed a temporary home after their lease at the Oakland Coliseum expires at the end of the season.  They received an offer to extend their lease, but ultimately decided that they'll play in Sacramento for three years, with an option to play there in 2028, as well, should there be any delays with the new stadium.

In its last negotiations with the A's, Oakland presented a five-year lease, with a team opt-out after three.  It also included a ridiculous $97 million "extension fee" that would've been due in full even if the team opted out.  That was eventually lowered to $60 million, which is still significantly higher than the $1.25 million per season the team currently pays to rent the Coliseum.  The team also owns a portion of the Coliseum site, which the city wanted sold back as part of the agreement, and the A's were receptive to that.  The rest of it, though?  Not so much.

So, they're off to Sacramento, where they'll share a 14,000 seat stadium with the Giants' Triple-A affiliate, the River Cats.  The River Cats are owned by Vivek Ranadive, who also owns the Sacramento Kings and is good friends with A's owner John Fisher.  As part of the deal, they won't use any geographic identifier during their time in Sacramento and will be known only as the "A's" (which is still somehow better than "Washington Football Team").

Which, frankly, is what Oakland deserves.  This is a city that has seen both the Raiders and Warriors move in recent years (the Raiders for the second time, after they left and came back), and both for the same reason.  The Oakland Coliseum is a piece of crap!  And the city has done nothing to fix it, despite the team's repeated attempts to get a new ballpark.  The threat of relocation was always there.  So why were people surprised when they followed through?

Let's not forget, that relocation is how Oakland got the A's in the first place!  The team started in Philadelphia, where it was an original American League franchise in 1901, before moving to Kansas City in 1955.  In 1968, they moved to Oakland.  So, no, the A's weren't "rooted" in Oakland.  They were born in Philadelphia.  And they don't "belong" there.  In fact, the amount of time they've been in Oakland (57 years) is only slightly longer than the amount of time they spent in Philadelphia (54 years).

And, frankly, it's not just the crumbling stadium that's a problem.  It's the attendance.  Which is why I think these "fans" with their reverse boycotts and "sell the team" chants are so ridiculous.  Because if they'd actually showed up to support the team before the move to Las Vegas was announced, then the A's might've been motivated to stay.  But, they're a small market team.  They need to sell tickets.  So, if people actually wanted to give them a reason to stay, they'd actually show up at the ballpark and prove it.

I mean, I do get their frustration to a point.  Why should they spend money to watch a terrible team that's making no effort to win?  But, that also means the A's aren't bringing in any revenue, so they don't have the resources to put back into the team.  That's one of the perils of being a small market club.  Yes, Fisher could invest some of his own money, but how much of his own money would he be willing to lose?  And, yes, he could sell the team.  But a new owner would have the same problems.

Simply put, Oakland had multiple chances to keep the A's.  The team spent how many years trying to get a new ballpark, and submitted how many proposals, to no avail?  It was only after the team started exploring other possibilities (including relocation) that the city started to get serious.  And even then, the city's proposal gave off an air of entitlement, as if they were saying the A's would never dare leave Oakland (because it's not like the Raiders had just done the exact same thing or anything).

After the relocation was announced and approved, the A's still needed to find a temporary home.  Staying in the Oakland Coliseum wasn't just an option.  It's arguably the option that made the most sense.  But you could tell the city had pretty much washed its hands of the team.  If they actually wanted them to stay, they would've made an offer that the A's might've agreed to.  Instead, they gave them another reason to leave.  And another reason to blame it on the team.

That's my biggest problem with these "fan" groups that suddenly came out of the woodwork.  They're acting like the A's are committing some sort of ultimate betrayal by moving to Las Vegas.  Yes, they've been playing in Oakland for 57 years, but where was this support earlier?  And all their protests are doing is further exacerbating the attendance problem that's been plaguing the team for years.  If they actually want the team in Oakland, this isn't the way to do it.

Oakland may think it "deserves" the A's, but what has it done to show it?  The Raiders left 40 years ago because LA was willing to give them what Oakland wouldn't, then they moved back, only to leave again because of the same issues that the A's have.  The Raiders were Oakland's team.  They had the fanbase and actually drew people to the Coliseum for games.  If they were willing to leave (for a second time!), they had to see it coming with the A's.  Frankly, it was only a matter of time.

The fact that they're choosing to play in a Minor League stadium in Sacramento instead of extending their lease in Oakland speaks volumes, too.  Even before the staged protests of the last two seasons, attendance in Oakland was embarrassing.  It looks especially bad when you consider how large that stadium is.  The stadium in Sacramento fits only 14,000 (which includes the standing-room-only sections in the outfield).  The A's have drawn less than 10,000 at each of their home games this season.  Assuming they draw similarly in Sacramento, that stadium will look a lot more full than 10,000 fans in the cavernous Oakland Coliseum.

Is it sad for the City of Oakland and A's fans?  Of course!  But if they really did want the team to stay, they didn't show it.  Instead, they took them for granted.  So, in the end, Oakland got what it deserved.  The A's are leaving for greener pastures in Las Vegas in 2028.  Why draw out the divorce, though?  The 2024 season will be their last in Oakland, which had plenty of chances to keep the team, but ended up driving it away.  Just like the Raiders, Warriors and Raiders again before them.

More Changes Coming?

For the past two years, the NCAA has used the incredibly stupid two-Reigonal format for the women's basketball tournament (even though there are four regions).  I've not hidden my disdain for this format.  It was supposed to last three seasons, but now they're reconsidering.  The women's basketball committee will meet this summer to discuss implementing potential changes a year earlier than scheduled.  Does that mean we could potentially see the return of four Regional sites in 2025?

The whole idea of having two different Regionals at the same site never quite made sense to me to begin with.  It took the NCAA a long time to move away from letting home teams play in a Regional that they're hosting to true neutral sites, which really just highlighted the strength of the women's game.  They didn't need to rely on their being a home team for fans to come to the games.  Sure, they'd still have UConn play somewhere in New England or New York, but the point remains.  They didn't need a home team to guarantee attendance.  At least for the Regionals.

Then, for some reason, the NCAA decided that even though they had no problem with attendance at four Regionals, they'd reduce the number to two.  The logic behind this move escapes me.  How exactly is it growing the game to give fewer people the opportunity to see the games without having to travel?  And it's not like they're playing in major metropolises either.  Last year, one was in Greenville, South Carolina, and this year's are in Albany and Portland!

Doesn't it make more sense to have the four Regions feed into four different Regional sites?  That way, you can spread it out more, too, which is better for both the fans and the participating teams.  The men have East, West, Midwest and South for a reason.  Shouldn't the women do the same thing?

They're also discussing potentially doing away with the longstanding tradition of having the top four seeds in each Region play their first- and second-round games at home.  Since those sites aren't determined until a few days beforehand, it can create logistical issues, some of which were highlighted this year, particularly in Spokane, where Gonzaga earned the right to host.  Except Spokane was also hosting the men's tournament and a major volleyball tournament that weekend, so hotel rooms were scarce.  As a result, some teams had to stay in Idaho, as far as 30 miles away.  And it was in one of those Idaho hotels where the ugly, racist incident involving Utah's team took place.

Those aren't the only logistical issues they have to deal with, either.  Another big one involves scheduling.  Two venues--the University of Iowa's Carver-Hawkeye Arena and Virginia Tech's Cassell Coliseum hosted both NIT and women's NCAA Tournament games in the same week.  Carver-Hawkeye also had a Women's First Four game, which was the night after the Iowa men's team played in the NIT.  Now, Iowa obviously knew they'd be hosting the women's tournament for a while, so that wasn't exactly a surprise, but having to schedule around the men's NIT certainly presented an added challenge.

And, since USC and UCLA were both top-four seeds, there were two different women's first- and second-round sites in Los Angeles...a week before a men's Regional in LA.  Now, LA's obviously a big enough city that hotel rooms, etc., weren't a problem.  And the fact that they were both good enough to host was purely a coincidence.  But, still, you had 16 first- and second-round sites, two of which were effectively in the same place.  (For the record, this happens in volleyball all the time with UCLA and USC both hosting.)

If they do go to predetermined sites, it wouldn't be the first time.  They tried it for a few years about a decade ago before going to the current format of the top four seeds in each Region hosting the 16 first- and second-round sites.  The one problem with that format they discovered, however, is that a host school that made the tournament automatically got to play on its home floor, even if they were the lower seed.  So, they could have, for example, a 7-seed playing a home game against a 2-seed in the second round.

However, should they go back to predetermined sites, I'm not sure there's a way around that.  Maybe they could put in some sort of stipulation that only a top-four seed can play at home, which would avoid the problem of a higher-seeded team playing a road game in the first or second round.  Or, they could simply say you can't host at all, which seems unlikely, since it would limit the amount of schools that put in to host.  It also wouldn't make any sense attendance-wise to have, for example, NCAA Tournament games in Storrs involving four random teams while UConn is playing somewhere else.

I can even remember a time when they only had eight opening weekend sites just like the men.  When I was in college, I did radio for the Canisius women's team.  We made our only NCAA Tournament appearance in 2005 and played Duke at the University of North Carolina.  Our game was a part of the afternoon session, while North Carolina's pod played at night.  Our game was not very well attended, as was the case with a number of other games in the eight-site format, so it was quickly abandoned and they went back to 16 sites.

Whether they make changes for next year's tournament or not, going back to eight sites is something I don't think they'll do.  It would obviously make things significantly easier for ESPN, who'd only need half as many broadcasters and production teams.  But the 16 sites actually give them greater scheduling flexibility that they'd be smart to continue taking advantage of.  Not to mention the fact that logistically, it's easier to find hotels for only four teams (in what will, presumably, be smaller cities than the men's tournament).  And, attendance could still be a worry on the first weekend, so letting teams play home games would at least guarantee better crowds than four teams on a neutral court would.

A few years ago, when they did that big analysis of the women's tournament and made suggestions for how to improve it, one of the recommendations was combining the Final Fours.  That, frankly, is an even dumber idea than the two Regionals!  You want to guarantee the Women's Final Four will be completely overshadowed?  Play it in the same city as the men's!  The women's game has shown it's perfectly capable of standing on its own.  It deserves to be a standalone event.  I'm glad that recommendation was ignored!

Just look at all the great, positive changes to the women's tournament in recent years as proof that it's thriving.  They moved the Championship Game to Sunday afternoon on ABC, and there were eight timeslots on ABC (two each on Saturday and Sunday) during the first two weekends.  And every game is broadcast live in its entirety on one of ESPN's networks.

Going back to four Regionals is another change that would be incredibly positive and needs to happen ASAP.  Because the two Regional site thing is just stupid!  As for the first- and second-round sites, I'm not sure.  I'd have to see what they come up with before I form an opinion.  Because I see the benefit of continuing to play on campus, but I can also see the benefit of going to predetermined sites.  Either way, they should stick with 16 of them.  Whether they will or not, that's a different question.

Only In Women's Basketball

If it was an April Fool's joke, it might've been funny.  Instead, it was embarrassingly real.  The court being used in Portland for the NCAA Women's Basketball Regionals were not the same distance.  What's worse, no one noticed it until prior to Sunday's Texas-NC State game...which was the fifth game being played on the court this weekend!  They played two games on Friday and two on Saturday with one three-point line incorrectly measured!

Upon discovering the error, they gave the teams two options.  They could either play the game with the floor as it was or wait for them to re-mark the line, which would've delayed the start about an hour.  Both sides agreed that there was no advantage to be gained since they'd both shoot at that basket for a half (and had both already played a game with the wrong distance on the one side), so they decided to start on time and play with the shorter line.

In his postgame press conference, Texas Head Coach Vic Schaefer joked that he'd have a lot of friends texting him "only in women's basketball."  Sadly, that's true.  The NCAA would never let something like this happen on the men's side.  With the women, it doesn't just happen.  It happens and no one realizes until three days later.  And the only response is "Whoops!" 

The timing of all this really makes you think it's an April Fool's joke, but it's far too real.  And it's the NCAA, once again, unnecessarily getting egg on its face in embarrassing fashion with something regarding the women's tournament.  A women's tournament that has otherwise been spectacular, yet is now being overtaken by an unforced error.

This is the second time in four years that the NCAA has been called out for a situation at the women's tournament.  In 2021, a player's social media post of the weight room (or lack thereof) in the San Antonio bubble went viral, highlighting the disparity between the men's and women's weight rooms.  It caused understandable and justifiable outrage that led to much greater reforms which finally put the women's tournament on (actual) equal footing with the men's.

Since then, the women's tournament has skyrocketed in popularity.  They moved the Championship Game to Sunday afternoon on ABC and the ratings were higher than they've ever been, completely validating the move.  And not just because of the star power of Caitlin Clark, Angel Reese, Juju Watkins, Paige Bueckers, Kamilla Cardoso and so many others.  But, instead of capitalizing on that, the NCAA shoots themselves in the foot with the "manufacturer error" on the court in Portland.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the NCAA blamed the contractor that makes the courts for the error.  The email that they sent out explained how it occurred, including the process used.  None of which explains how the court was measured nine inches short in the first place...or how nobody caught it.  Especially since the women's and men's three-point lines are the same distance!  So that can't even be used as an excuse!  It's not even like it was an inch or two, which would be a little more understandable.  We're talking about NINE FREAKIN' INCHES here!

I actually don't know what's worse, either.  That it happened or that no one realized it.  Stanford Head Coach Tara VanDerveer, whose team lost to NC State in the Sweet 16 on Friday night, didn't hold back in her statement, calling it "inexcusable and unfair."  She said, "For an error of that magnitude to overshadow what has been an incredible two weekends of basketball featuring sensational teams and incredible individual performances is unacceptable and extremely upsetting."

While VanDerveer is right, the incorrect three-point line at least didn't have an impact on any of the games.  They showed a stat that the three-point percentages in the five games with the incorrect distance were actually lower on the short side than they were on the side where it was correct.  And, as the Texas and NC State coaches noted, both teams shoot at both baskets, so there was no advantage to be gained unless it went to overtime, which none of the games in Portland did.  So, there's no grounds to replay any of the games.  But, still, it shouldn't have happened.

Once the error was discovered, they vowed to fix it, which they did in time for Monday night's UConn-USC game.  Except the solution may be even more embarrassing since it draws such obvious attention to the mistake.  The area inside the three-point line is stained in a lighter color than the rest of the court.  They did cover up the shorter line.  I'll give them that.  But there's also a sliver of that darker stain between the original line and the correct line.

It's not noticeable on TV, but the color that they painted over the three-point line with doesn't even match!  The NCAA statement said that the color matches the wood grain "as closely as possible" and that the correct three-point line was repainted in black.  The change "brings the court into full compliance with NCAA playing rules."  So, basically what they're saying is that the playing court at one of two Regional sites was NOT in compliance with NCAA playing rules until then!

Now just imagine this happening at the men's tournament.  You can't.  Because it never would!  That, frankly, is the bigger problem.  The men's tournament is the crown jewel, and the revenue it generates provides a majority of the NCAA's operating budget.  The women's tournament is a close second, yet it was treated like the men's tournament's little sister for far too long until the uproar about the weight room in San Antonio resulted in the changes that did make them separate but equal events.  Now this.

We shouldn't be talking about a floor.  When you walk onto a basketball court, especially for an NCAA Tournament game, whether the lines on the floor are correct is the last thing you should be thinking about.  That would be like marking the free throw line at 14 feet, 8 inches instead of 15 feet or setting the basket to nine and a half feet instead of 10.  You wouldn't use a men's ball for a women's game, would you?

Obviously, you would not.  And, while the mistake with the three-point line was the result of human error and simple oversight, it still never should've happened.  The NCAA has vowed that they'll "establish additional quality control measures to ensure this does not happen in future tournaments."  That should go without saying.  And, frankly, those quality control measures should already be in place!  Because what happened in Portland is simply unacceptable.